"Perhaps"!?

It would appear that you have a desire to make everthing GREY . . even the black & white. heh-heh.

Pretty incredible, isn't it. Here these guys are putting up with all kinds of crap, and yet they prefer that to what Kerry will give them. (a lost cause. . .all for not . .. wrong war, wrong place, wrong time)

The military is instructed to go with bush

:D

Actually, I heard that the percentage of military for Kerry is something like 24%, which I actually felt was high, since the military is traditionally overwhelmingly supportive of republicans.

cool_chick, I thought we were going out for drinks rather than trying to convince island. The guy would defend Bush even if the administration would consist of complete nincompoops. Oh wait....

And who do the republicans support in this election?

Really, seriously; how is it you will believe Saddam (mass killings of his own people. . .bulldoze them into the ground) and yet have the knee-jerk reation that anything Bush says must be a lie?

The real republicans support John Kerry:

http://www.errolmorris.com/html/election04/election04_main.html

"Just in: Russians ‘may have taken Iraq explosives’

Yeah. Our WMD satellites must have been on sleep mode at the time. How does one covertly move 330 tons of munitions out of the playing field w/o our knowing? Or maybe we knew and didn't care because the statue fell over. Or maybe we didn't know because no one cared to tell us until now.

I guess there could be a reasonable explanation for everything; just like JFK's assasination plot, but for some reason, this doesn't even stick as well as that Dallas story.

Sherwood

LOL

You do realize that i'm more anti-kerry, than pro-GW. (?)

(I most always vote third party.)

Kerry is sooooo bad. The Dem's really screwed you guys by putting him up for election.

I don't think that "everything Bush says must be a lie." I analyze the evidence, look at what Bush is saying, then determine if he's being truthful with us or not..

Many things don't add up, don't make sense with Bush. Sorry.

The funny thing is that we feel Bush is soooooo bad. And personally, I don't feel Kerry is as awful of a person as you make him out to be. I've done my homework on him as well (and this doesn't mean listening to campaign ads/slogans). There are a lot of distortions out there.

The thing is, no one knows how much was left there (after a few storage bunkers were cratered).

No one knows . .. well except for John Kerry! He knows the terrorists got them all . . .and it's George Bush's fault . . .it is! it is! it is! :rolleyes:

LOL island.

Someone has to be held accountable. The buck stops with Bush. Just like in a corporation.....

Part of the job. And if he doesn't want to listen to his advisors who said PUT MORE TROOPS IN THAN THAT NUMBER and being the BUCK, it stops there.

If Bush has such a problem being an accountable leader for things in this country, being the BUCK, maybe he should not bother on November 2nd.

For what?

For mistakes that happen. You know, like at work. Someone needs to be held accountable and accept their mistakes so they can fix the problem, as well as listen to advisors who have expertise in their respective areas. Big problem with ol Bushie. I don't know if you know this, but there are weapons sites that STILL aren't secure.

When crap hits the media, then he starts addressing the problem. Advisors tell him things, he ignores it. Only when it hits the media (when it's out of control) .....

We don't KNOW what happened to those weapons, or the WMD. (Bush is taking lots heat for that one)

Seriously, this is nothing more than a red-herring from Kerry.

Just think of what "unconventional stuff" is missing. That is scary.

But in WAR, things are not all tidy. You have guys like saddam, with armies, and cohorts liek the Russians and French, working hard to screw your plans. (though i'm certain that Kerrys PLANS will go off w/o a hitch .. . .just look at his stellar record.):rolleyes:

There were no WMDs. The dueffler report definitively proved that there were none made after 1991. The sanctions worked.
.

So you don't want to defend Kerrys stellar PLAN record?

Okay. . . "definitively proved none" (?)

You should always be suspicious of any time someone wants you to believe a that they have proved a negative like that.

Bush's first excuse for invading iraq was that saddam couldn't prove that he didn't have WMD. Thats a pretty solid example of people wanting you to belive that you can prove a negative.

What does that say about about bush and his supporters?

Island, i HAVE!!!

9/11 report. That's enough for me to know that the war on TERRORISM AND TERRORISTS will be addressed, and the way it should be...from multiple angles. Plus, Kerry is in a better position to implement same, since Bush is pretty much distrusted and has lost credibility with most of the world anymore, who probably won't be willing to work with him.

You just don't want to accept my answer so I don't know what to say anymore.